If all religion is false then why is....

[Crunchy Cat]

If all religion is false...

Religion isn't false. Alot of their assertions are (ex. 'God exists').

... why are there striking parallels in the teachings and words of spiritual figures

Because all humans anthropmorphize reality and have the same psychological needs.

Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Lao Tzu, among others all have similarities in their teachings...why is this?

Same reason as above.

...there are innumerable parallels almost as if they are trying to explain the same truth to mankind...

Reference the information above.

Also, we can all agree that within 1,000 years if science and civilization continue as it is then science will be almost completely different...making many many things we currently believe in modern science 100% false...

Those are two different things you are seeking agreement on. 1. Science will be completely different. 2. All knowledge considered to be 'true' will be falsified. I don't think I could agree to either as I lack the knowledge and visibility to come to such a conclusion.

...so why do you atheists act as if science is 100% true, to highest degree?

Science is a process that is used to ask reality questions... it is not some cosmic truth in itself. Alot of atheists take the position that if reality agrees with some assertion (i.e. it yields evidence for it) then it is true. There is alot of science that builds prediction upon prediction with some foundation of empirical evidence. The higher you build in theory, the greater the chance of being incorrect and this is perfectly ok.

I can bet that if you lived in the 1600s, because you have the same mentality, you would be telling me that the sun revolves around the Earth, there are no such things as blackholes, there is no quantum particles, etc...and this was just a bit more than 400 years ago...

You might be right. Unfortunately, there is no way to test your prediction.

Knowing this to be true, why do you speak as if science is 100% true...

Science isn't truth... its a process. Truth is truth (i.e. that which reality says is true).

the truths spiritual masters revealed in the past remain the same, unchanging and sensible...yet you do not believe them nor do you even consider them to be true...why is this?

The 'truths' that 'spiritual masters' reveal isn't what they tell you (that's fantasy). It's the observable behavior they and their students exhibit.

 

[cato]

Woah, you must not know how to use a dictionary:

sci‧ence [sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Check definition 5, and now figure out what "modern science" means, don't worry you can do it if you try hard enough. Ancient science is different from modern science....

no, thats a bullshit layman definition of science. they are giving the definition of scientific knowledge. ask a physicist whether science is a method, or whether it is knowledge and they will say its a method. however, if you say is it a branch of knowledge, they will probably say yes, as that branch of knowledge has come from the method. I know this is kind of hard to get your head around, as the method of science produces scientific knowledge, and thus they are tightly intertwined.

maybe I should put it another way:
if science is knowledge, then why use the word science? why not just use the word knowledge? moreover, why call a scientific theory a scientific theory? if science is synonymous with knowledge, then why not just call that scientific theory knowledge? the reason is because scientific knowledge, is knowledge obtained with the scientific method. the definition you give above refers to science as non-scientists see it, knowledge.


it is difficult explaining it to a non-scientist, so let put it this way:
definition of scientist:
"a person learned in science" (Merriam-Webster)
if you use your definition of science, then a scientist is a person learned in knowledge, and thus anyone with a education is a scientist. that is obviously not the case. even if you use the looser definition, you still get that a messed up definition of scientists, namely, someone learned in knowledge gained by the scientific method. thus a scientists could be a science teacher, which is not the case. scientists are practitioners of the scientific method. I don't know how else to make it clear. perhaps at one point, science did mean knowledge, but it does not now.

you have to take dictionary definitions with a grain of salt. they are explaining something that has existed for thousands of years, and is more complex than any single person can understand, in a single sentence.

original thought is difficult when people are telling you "this is the way it is" but you really should try.

 

[cato]

You should know that science and religion are only enemies in the West.

I am not sure what you mean by this, I never said they are enemies. science supersedes religion, thus religions "boil down" to similar things because those things are what science has not explained.

Also, don't you find it strange that people who claim to have found a path to end all suffering, path to eternal bliss, all say very similar things?

give examples of these "paths"

Maybe, in reality, they really did discover the essential truth, and thats why they say very very similar things. Also, I don't really see how science is in contradiction with their words.

science is no longer in contradiction with most religious doctrine, that is because the religions that did have contradictions died because they were exposed as fantasy (like chariots pulling the sun across the sky). show me some of the similar things and I will likely be able to draw the connections for you.

 

[VitalOne]

Religion isn't false. Alot of their assertions are (ex. 'God exists').



Because all humans anthropmorphize reality and have the same psychological needs.

Perhaps, but why do you close your eyes to the possibility that the spiritual masters really did discover the essential truth and gained eternal bliss...there's really not much in science against it....

Science is a process that is used to ask reality questions... it is not some cosmic truth in itself. Alot of atheists take the position that if reality agrees with some assertion (i.e. it yields evidence for it) then it is true. There is alot of science that builds prediction upon prediction with some foundation of empirical evidence. The higher you build in theory, the greater the chance of being incorrect and this is perfectly ok.

Yes which is why new notions and assertions are frowned upon because they could destroy the many theories....just like how Quantum Physics was not easily accepted by many scientists in the beginning...every once in a while there's a big revolution that changes things...that probably will happen many times in a 1,000 years as our current knowledge is incomplete.

Science isn't truth... its a process. Truth is truth (i.e. that which reality says is true).


The 'truths' that 'spiritual masters' reveal isn't what they tell you (that's fantasy). It's the observable behavior they and their students exhibit.

I find these two statements contradictory...you claim that the truths spiritual masters are fantasy yet science isn't the truth. So then where do you get the notion that truths revealed by spiritual masters are fantasy?

no, thats a bullshit layman definition of science. they are giving the definition of scientific knowledge. ask a physicist whether science is a method, or whether it is knowledge and they will say its a method. however, if you say is it a branch of knowledge, they will probably say yes, as that branch of knowledge has come from the method. I know this is kind of hard to get your head around, as the method of science produces scientific knowledge, and thus they are tightly intertwined.

maybe I should put it another way:
if science is knowledge, then why use the word science? why not just use the word knowledge? moreover, why call a scientific theory a scientific theory? if science is synonymous with knowledge, then why not just call that scientific theory knowledge? the reason is because scientific knowledge, is knowledge obtained with the scientific method. the definition you give above refers to science as non-scientists see it, knowledge.


it is difficult explaining it to a non-scientist, so let put it this way:
definition of scientist:
"a person learned in science" (Merriam-Webster)
if you use your definition of science, then a scientist is a person learned in knowledge, and thus anyone with a education is a scientist. that is obviously not the case. even if you use the looser definition, you still get that a messed up definition of scientists, namely, someone learned in knowledge gained by the scientific method. thus a scientists could be a science teacher, which is not the case. scientists are practitioners of the scientific method. I don't know how else to make it clear. perhaps at one point, science did mean knowledge, but it does not now.

you have to take dictionary definitions with a grain of salt. they are explaining something that has existed for thousands of years, and is more complex than any single person can understand, in a single sentence.

original thought is difficult when people are telling you "this is the way it is" but you really should try.

Well I think I get what you're saying in a technical sense...but you know what I mean by modern science....the knowledge we have in 1,000 years will be different from our current knowledge...therefore eliminating many theories and beliefs we currently uphold to be true right now....so in other words many things you currently believe that scientist accept are 100% false

give examples of these "paths"

you know many paths to end suffering as taught as spiritual teachers of the past...why are they all so similar

science is no longer in contradiction with most religious doctrine, that is because the religions that did have contradictions died because they were exposed as fantasy (like chariots pulling the sun across the sky). show me some of the similar things and I will likely be able to draw the connections for you.

No thats because of the Catholic Church....it eliminated most Pagan religions from Earth...very little to do with science...Buddhism (500BCE) doesn't really contradict science...Upanishinadic teachings (800BCE) also doesn't really contradict science...Advaita Vedantic teachings (500AD) fit in with science so well that renown physicists like Erwin Schrödinger and Robert Oppenheimer became Vedantists.

 

[cato]

you know many paths to end suffering as taught as spiritual teachers of the past...why are they all so similar

its hard to speak on such a thing without specific examples.

Yes which is why new notions and assertions are frowned upon because they could destroy the many theories....just like how Quantum Physics was not easily accepted by many scientists in the beginning...every once in a while there's a big revolution that changes things...that probably will happen many times in a 1,000 years as our current knowledge is incomplete.

I don't think that is true. new theories are not frowned upon, new theories are what every physicist dreams of discovering. QM was only moderately hard to accept because it was hard to experiment with it in its early years. don't let peer review get confused with resistance to a theory. peer review is use as a BS filter. if you theory is sound and is better at explaining a phenomenon than the currently accepted theory, it will win out.

additionally, it was the belief of Einstein that theories should be simple. yet, despite the fact that Einstein was very influential, QM (a very complex theory) still survived. I think that is a testament to the strength of the scientific method.

 

[Godless]

Is it not literally funny as hell, that theist will always try to discredit science, when using an object that took SCIENCE to develop? Hypocrites!!

 

[spidergoat]

Nice quotes. I think I see what you are getting at VitalOne, but these are simple truths on the nature of being. They do not contradict science, nor do they necessarily favor a theistic viewpoint.

The problem is people don't want to take the time to find out these truths for themselves and simply accepting them as statements of truth is pointless.

Science is a method for finding things out. Meditation, prayer and contemplation are methods for finding things out about yourself.

 

[wsionynw]

This is exactly what I'm talking about, you atheists believe you already know it all, there is nothing you do not know, therefore you are able to know that religion is "supserstitious bullocks". Because you have knowledge of everything, you KNOW that reilgion is false, you do not even consider the words of the perfected ones of the past. Do not do good deeds, do not help others, just do as you please.

You've got that the wrong way around, it's atheists that accept scinece doesn't yet hold all the answers but is simply working with the facts we do know.
Theists reject science if it doesn't support their superstitious beliefs. They believe that there chosen religion holds all the knowledge they could possibly want, but embrace scientific advances just so longs as they don't clash with religious dogma.

 

[wsionynw]

Also, you still don't get that many of the very things you believe in science currently are 100% false.

Such as?

 

[Light Travelling]

Theists reject science if it doesn't support their superstitious beliefs. They believe that there chosen religion holds all the knowledge they could possibly want, but embrace scientific advances just so longs as they don't clash with religious dogma.

As far as I am aware theists do not (by definition) reject any science at all. Most theists accept science as a great method of emperical investigation. The only objection theists have against science is the when science claims it 'knows' god and the spiritual does not exist. When in fact all it can really say is it cant provide emperical evidence that either god does or does not exist.

Theists may object to certain branches of science on ethical grounds, but that is not to say they do not agree that the science itself works. Remember also that many atheists object to certain branches of science on ethical grounds as well. It is not a straight split atheist vs theist when it comes to such issues.



Vital One: I completely agree with what you are saying here, something I have thought for many years.

There is a chapter in Chuang Tzu, I think called below in the empire, which describes how the men of the past had and understood a complete body of spiritual teaching (or should I rather say lived a complete body of spiritual teaching), which became split up as mans capacity to hold it reduced, and now each of the various schools holds only a part of it. This was written about 300BC, so the schools it refers to are chinese schools not world schools. (the A. C. Graham translation is good if you haven't read it).

 

[pavlosmarcos]

If all religion is false why are there striking parallels in the teachings and words of spiritual figures...surely they are trying to reveal the same truth...

Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Lao Tzu, among others all have similarities in their teachings...why is this?

probably because, as one culture overrode another it adopted some, if not all of it's superstitions,(gigamesh=jesus, etc) before it moved on and was itself overridden.
hence why we have such a diversity of different religions/superstitions.

 

[Light Travelling]

Originally Posted by VitalOne
”Also, you still don't get that many of the very things you believe in science currently are 100% false.”


Such as?

Such as he has already explained. At every point in the past science has believed itself to be correct, yet a hundred years or so later a great deal of it is proved to be wrong. This cycle continually keeps repeating and yet at every stage the scientists of the day ignore history and believe they are completely correct. Even on this post someone makes the claim that science is now 99.9% correct. Yet to make such claims goes against historical evidence. Based on what has happened in the past we can say with some certainty that a great deal of what science now says is fact will in the future be shown as fiction.

Yet many people ignore this fact a take science as 100% fact.. Now obviously we have to have a working truth, the best we can come up with existing methods, knowledge and technology; and this is fine as long as we view it as such and not take it as a complete description of absolute reality to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Science is a very good empirical method but to solely rely on it means making the massive assumption that all that is of importance to us and to reality is tangible with the five senses or our technological extensions of the five senses.

 

[VitalOne]

Is it not literally funny as hell, that theist will always try to discredit science, when using an object that took SCIENCE to develop? Hypocrites!!

I'm not trying to discredit science...I'm just stating the obvious...a 1,000 years from now there will be theories and principles, etc...you would never have dreamed to be true because our current knowledge will be inferior to the knowledge we possess in 1,000 years. There's a big revolution in science every once in a while that changes things (like the QM revolution), this will surely happen several times within a thousand years, as anyone will tell you modern science is still very incomplete, there are many many unknowns.

Knowing this to be true, how can anyone act as if our modern science is 100% true?

Nice quotes. I think I see what you are getting at VitalOne, but these are simple truths on the nature of being. They do not contradict science, nor do they necessarily favor a theistic viewpoint.

The problem is people don't want to take the time to find out these truths for themselves and simply accepting them as statements of truth is pointless.

Science is a method for finding things out. Meditation, prayer and contemplation are methods for finding things out about yourself.

I agree, however in my opinion because their teachings are so vastly similar, there must be something to it all.

You've got that the wrong way around, it's atheists that accept scinece doesn't yet hold all the answers but is simply working with the facts we do know.
Theists reject science if it doesn't support their superstitious beliefs. They believe that there chosen religion holds all the knowledge they could possibly want, but embrace scientific advances just so longs as they don't clash with religious dogma.

Atheists are no different. They act as if they KNOW that modern science is 100% true, to the highest degree, similarly to how many theists act as if they KNOW their dogma to be true.

It is really a matter of faith, faith that science will not change, and that science will not discover some that there is some type of unphysical mind which would thereby confirm an afterlife or some other discovery that may confirm other religious beliefs. It is all a matter of faith for atheists and theists.

Atheists claim that religion is false because of modern science. Now logically we all know that science will change tremendously within a 1,000 years, and then more within 10,000 years, if civilization still exists the way it does. So those very same beliefs currently held be true by scientists today will be very different in time. Knowing our current, modern science to simply be another phase in the search for the truth, an atheists must have much faith in science, nothing but faith, so much incredible faith in modern science they rule out every possibility of any religious beliefs being true. Its all a matter of faith for them.

 

[tablariddim]

I don't think all religions are strikingly similar, but some do contain universal truths that if nothing else are vital to our survival and well being as individuals in societies.

Don't kill, don't steal, don,t lie, don't jealously envy etc. These are universal truths and morals that are desirable for all to have. Another universal truth is that many people are both deaf and blind to the truth. Religions take universal truths and weave them into intricate tapestries of oppressive laws designed to afford powers to the promoters of the religion and the governments they are in cahoots with.

 

[VitalOne]

I don't think all religions are strikingly similar, but some do contain universal truths that if nothing else are vital to our survival and well being as individuals in societies.

Don't kill, don't steal, don,t lie, don't jealously envy etc. These are universal truths and morals that are desirable for all to have. Another universal truth is that many people are both deaf and blind to the truth. Religions take universal truths and weave them into intricate tapestries of oppressive laws designed to afford powers to the promoters of the religion and the governments they are in cahoots with.

I never said all religions are similar, they are very different from another, as they are shaped by environment and culture. However, although they are all very different, the truths revealed by spiritual masters remain the same, as if they were trying to explain the same essential truth to mankind.

Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Lao Tzu, and others all taught seemingly different paths but the truths they revealed about reality were very very similar. It is as if they are talking about the samething, yet preaching it through different paths.

 

[Enterprise-D]

There is a very very simple explanation for similarities of heroic characters in religious teachings.

Superman and Captain Jean-Luc Picard behave quite similarly as the heroic leaders of their own fictitous universes. And both were written by different writers at different times with different but arguably equally devastating showings of power to justify slamming their moral code on others. Does this mean that Superman and Jean-Luc exist?

Let's explore another tangent. Some time ago, MedicineWoman pointed out that the Vatican were going to abolish the concept of purgatory...that area where souls are placed for a limited trial and time because they are not yet deserving of heaven. Why this sudden change of heart? Because (and I believe I quote) the purgatory concept might seem unappealing to potential converts. A sound marketing strategy.

The personalities of all of these deities are written by humans. With human perspective. With human marketing tactics. All of the deities must by definition support and proclaim equal power and piety for the same reasons as the comparisons above reveal:

1. High morality by human standards are the same no matter what story covers them up.

2. Since religions are closer to business or even political entities they must subscribe to the rules of marketing (as evidenced by the purgatory incident).

Marketing strategies dictate at least a balance of power, if not a showing of superiority, to encourage continuity of membership and/or longevity of the enterprise. Therefore Lord Krishna must at least be as powerful and as moral as Jesus, etc etc etc.

Further, humans creators by and large have absolutely no shame in rehashing. Take a look at Hollywood. It is not unreasonable to assume that one religion was created with others in mind in order to curry favor because of the very similarities of the deities.

It is no coincidence therefore that deities, all invented at different times would seem similar and carry a similar message.

 

[Kron]

Religions are similar due to the collective unconsious. Every society has its own stories of white knights and damsels in distress.

 

[Light Travelling]

collective unconsious. .

But even this alludes to the truth of spiritual reality. The collective unconcious (if there is one) certainly cannot be seen, touched, probed or measured by emperical science.

 

[Enterprise-D]

I was just thinking that Kron summed up my diatribe nicely until Lightee #2 came and misinterpreted it...which is why I tend to be verbose at times. It is not a collective unconscious that create the stories, it is the evolutionary or sometimes revolutionary creativity that is common in humans.

The stories appear to be similar because everyone likes a hero-adversary-victim schtik.

 

[VitalOne]

There is a very very simple explanation for similarities of heroic characters in religious teachings.

Superman and Captain Jean-Luc Picard behave quite similarly as the heroic leaders of their own fictitous universes. And both were written by different writers at different times with different but arguably equally devastating showings of power to justify slamming their moral code on others. Does this mean that Superman and Jean-Luc exist?

Let's explore another tangent. Some time ago, MedicineWoman pointed out that the Vatican were going to abolish the concept of purgatory...that area where souls are placed for a limited trial and time because they are not yet deserving of heaven. Why this sudden change of heart? Because (and I believe I quote) the purgatory concept might seem unappealing to potential converts. A sound marketing strategy.

The personalities of all of these deities are written by humans. With human perspective. With human marketing tactics. All of the deities must by definition support and proclaim equal power and piety for the same reasons as the comparisons above reveal:

1. High morality by human standards are the same no matter what story covers them up.

2. Since religions are closer to business or even political entities they must subscribe to the rules of marketing (as evidenced by the purgatory incident).

Marketing strategies dictate at least a balance of power, if not a showing of superiority, to encourage continuity of membership and/or longevity of the enterprise. Therefore Lord Krishna must at least be as powerful and as moral as Jesus, etc etc etc.

Further, humans creators by and large have absolutely no shame in rehashing. Take a look at Hollywood. It is not unreasonable to assume that one religion was created with others in mind in order to curry favor because of the very similarities of the deities.

It is no coincidence therefore that deities, all invented at different times would seem similar and carry a similar message.

Your explanation is insufficient and lacking. Superman and Jean-Luc Picard are fictional characters with very few similarities. They do not say word for word the same thing, nor does it appear as if they are trying to explain the samethings. There similarities are vague in that they are both leaders and commanders...thats about it. Also Superman was based on Hercules...as the story is almost identical (super-strength, they both grow up knowing that they are different from others, Hercules finds out he came from the heavens, Superman finds out he came from outer space).

Also the rest of what you say makes little to no sense. Lao Tzu and The Buddha are known to have historically existed. Lord Krishna was written about before Jesus Christ. One of the reasons I believe that Krishna and Jesus historically existed is because of the words they have spoken.

Just see for yourself that they are indeed speaking of the same essential truth:

"It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu

"It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though faultily, than another's duties perfectly. Destruction in the course of performing one's own duty is better than engaging in another's duties, for to follow another's path is dangerous." - Krishna (BG 3.35)

"Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you." - Jesus (Gospel of Thomas, 3)

"The Supreme Truth exists outside and inside of all living beings...." - Krishna (BG 13.16)

These similarities are not vague. The truths they reveal are the same, unchanging. What you are telling me is that if one man on his own says 1+1=2 and another man on his own says 1+1=2, they are talking about two completely different things which have no relation to each other. This is an illogical conclusion.